Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Parameter Efficient Instruction Tuning: An Empirical Study

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.16775 v1 pith:ZMSVW6DH submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords instructionfinetuningloratrainingadaptertuningtaskscompared
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Instruction tuning has become an important step for finetuning pretrained language models to better follow human instructions and generalize on various tasks. Nowadays, pretrained language models become increasingly larger, and full parameter finetuning is overwhelmingly costly. Therefore, Parameter Efficient Finetuning (PEFT) has arisen as a cost-effective practice for instruction tuning because of significantly smaller computational, memory, and storage cost compared to full finetuning. Despite their widespread adaptations, the vast hyperparameter spaces, the number of PEFT methods, the different focus of instruction tuning capabilities make disentangling the impact of each aspect difficult. This study systematically investigates several representative PEFT methods, surveying the effect of hyperparameter choices including training hyperparameters and PEFT-specific hyperparameters, how different models sizes and the number of instruction tasks affect the performance, in-task-distribution memorization and open instruction following capability. Our empirical study shows that only LoRA and adapter can get close to full finetuning with ideal training settings. The ideal training setting includes an appropriate learning rate, largest LoRA rank or adapter size allowed and diverse training tasks. On the other hand, LoRA and adapter suffer from training instability if such an ideal training condition is not met. Additionally, LoRA requires a greater number of tasks for effective unseen task generalization, exhibit slower learning speed. Moreover, LoRA has weaker task-level memorization. Lastly, LoRA and adapter fall short in complex reasoning, coding and long-form generation compared to finetuning in open instruction tuning settings but it shows stronger capabilities compared to adapter.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Language-Guided Bayesian Optimization for Efficient LoRA Hyperparameter Search

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLM embeddings plus Bayesian optimization find better LoRA hyperparameters in ~30 proxy trials than standard published settings.

  2. Look Within or Look Beyond? A Theoretical Comparison Between Parameter-Efficient and Full Fine-Tuning

    cs.LG 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper claims PEFT is a strict, less robust, lower-capacity subset of full fine-tuning, but the mathematical proofs contain load-bearing errors and the experiments, while suggestive, cannot repair them.

Pith tools